Ever since my conversion in 2004 to
the Church Christ founded, I am continually reminded of how ignorant I am of
the Churches teaching. The breadth and depth of truth that our Holy Faith touts
can be likened to the Mariana Trench. In reality, the vast wisdom of the Church
(which is the body of Christ) can never be measured, simply because man cannot
comprehend the mind of God: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable His way!" (Romans 11:33) The recent reminder of this has its source from the jurisprudence of Aquinas and the Social Teaching of the Church.
An associate of mine who is not Catholic -well to be honest he is a radical homosexual liberal who is regular in his protestant church attendance, piqued my interests on a topic that until now has received only cursory attention in my personal studies. My association with him is purely academic in nature; however, the conversations will from time to time alight on juridical topics. On one of these occasions-the contextual topic I can't seem to recollect, he emphatically declared his favor of a separation of church and state. The activation of my inner truth meter served as an initial warning to his statement. I was disappointed in my inability to express orally this education; but it did however provide a future subject to explore. Upon further examination, the dormant corpuscle of truth that was signaling my conscience that evening was not immaterial.
The Point I am referring to ultimately, is the reign of Christ the king. Reign in both our spiritual lives as Catholics, as well as physical governmental reign of peoples in the world; the separation of which in America, being the cause of a slew of moral problems. My upbringing as a protestant American has had certain effects upon my understanding of politics; not necessarily how a government is to rule its people, but the actual authority behind that rule. The underlying belief that the church as a spiritual body of believers, as opposed to the truth of it being a physical body, needing physical rule by Christ, stewarded by the catholic church; has lingered and continues to cloud my understanding of a true catholic culture. This disadvantage is slowly being healed by the good catechism I am receiving from my parish priests, good friends, and personal study. The influence I speak of is Americanism. Simply put the superabundant faith Americans put in their political system; the idea that authority lies in the people exemplified in the adage, " power to the people.", when in truth, authority comes from god alone. Pope Leo the 13th had something to say on this:
An associate of mine who is not Catholic -well to be honest he is a radical homosexual liberal who is regular in his Protestant church attendance, piqued my interests on a topic that until now has received only cursory attention in my personal studies. My association with him is purely academic in nature;
The right to rule is not
necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take
this or that form provided only that it be of a nature to insure the general
welfare. But whatever be the nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in
mind that God is the paramount Ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the
administration of the State (emphasis mine)(Pope Leo XIII).
On the same subject he writes:
Every civilized community
must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself,
has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its author. Hence it
follows that all public power must proceed from God. For God alone is the true
and supreme lord of the world. Everything without exception must be subject to
Him, and must serve Him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern, holds it from one sole and single
source, namely, God, the Sovereign Ruler of all. "There is no power but
from God." (Rom. 13:1)(Pope Leo XIII, Immortale
Dei)
Also he declares the importance of
a state to declare itself a Catholic State, if that state is a Catholic
Society:
In a Catholic society, it
is incumbent upon the State to be a "Catholic State," to declare and
to treat Catholicism as "the religion of the State." The formal,
official, and exclusive recognition and profession of Catholicism by the State
in a Catholic society as its own one and only religion, in short, the
establishment of Catholicism as "the religion of the State," seems
necessarily contained in the very notion of the State's duty to accept and
profess the true religion, therefore Catholicism, with its creed, code and
cult. How else could the State, qua State, in truth accept and profess
Catholicism, together with its tenet that it alone is the true religion?
This is a precise description of
the deference a state should have toward God:
Men living together in
society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society,
not less than individuals, owes gratitude to God, who gave it being and
maintains it, and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless
blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to
God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its
teaching and practice—not such religion as they may have a preference for, but
the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to
be the only one true religion—it is a public crime to act as though there were
no God. So, too, is it a sin in the State not to have care for religion, as a
something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms
of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for States are
bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.
All who rule, therefore, should hold in honor the holy Name of God, and one of
their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it . . . .
This next and last excerpt is
strikingly similar to that of our nation and is cited as reprehensible:
The State (civitas) does not consider itself bound by any kind
of duty towards God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make
public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many
religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or
to show to any form of religion special favour; but, on the contrary, is bound
to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed
by any particular form of religious belief.
With this in mind you should
recall Obama's comment at a “Call to Renewal” conference: “Whatever we once were, we are no
longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a
Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of
nonbelievers.”, this being a perfect example of the above quote that, “[the
state]…is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire
which of the very many religions is the only one true…”
What does
a state look like that is ruled by God and what does one like that is ruled by
men? One does not have to struggle laboriously to imagine what a state looks
like without Gods laws as their foundation. The easiest example to reference is
America herself, whose fruits entail legalization of divorce, contraception, pornography,
sodomy, abortion and polytheism (polytheism in the sense of allowing public
expression of other religions as if that expression were not detrimental to the
common good) ; with underlying ideals of materialism, socialism, unbridled capitalism
and liberalism to name just a few. America evidently does not stand alone in
these atrocities, many South American, European and other countries are also
sliding headlong into these enlightened ideals of freedom, unity and plurality
that do not align themselves with the Traditions of the Church; God and his Law
are not the reference for any government today.
It is
hard to paint a picture of a state that is ruled by Christ, because I do not
know of one that is not inhabited by sinful man. There have however been
self-proclaimed Catholic states, which have attempted submission to Christ the
King that we will look at. But I first want to expound a bit more on the
American Political System and dig slightly deeper into its errors. I will admit
though, with the shifting position of the Church on religious liberty in the
documents of Vatican II, this may be borderline traditionalism. I am not a
traditionalist in the sense that I do not acquiesce to the teaching of the
current Magisterium. On the contrary my fidelity to them is on par with the
teaching of the Church in its entirety, incorporating and implementing equally
the popes and doctors of holy memory and those presently presiding; partitioning
any one of these would results in a fragmentation and only further disunity. On
the other hand, when there is an apparent contradiction in teaching of the
Church and the reconciliation of which can only be determined by choosing
between pass teaching and current teaching, one must choose based on reason,
intellect, history and hopefully the Holy Spirit.
It is
obvious that our nation prides itself on its plurality and tolerance. It is
hard to imagine it developing into anything different, since it is comprised of
a myriad of races and creeds. But as a predominately Christian nation, we must
give deference and credit where credit is due –that is of course to God. I find
it mind numbing trying to trace back the original deviation from truth of our
forefathers; as soon as you think you
have found a first cause, another progenitor rears its heretical head. The
bottom line is, our nation is founded by non-Catholics and as such, I find it
futile to point out errors that aren’t exactly novel. Protestants suffer foremost
with a serious lack of obedience to authority and consequently have put their
trust in a form of government whose authority lies within the very people whom
they govern. This authority is commonly exercised on representatives; whom by
flexing their own legislative authority, infringe upon an opposing group of
people, who in turn take measures to usurp them in the upcoming elections. It
would seem it is a ping ponging of authority between liberal and conservatives;
a perfect government for protesters and those like Satan who declare: “Non Serviam.”
Now of
course I have left out the authority of law –having developed at a guarded rate
and whose semblance has aged ever so slightly up until about 50 years or so;
has been nipped and tucked to such a degree, that it no longer resembles its
stoic countenance. I am of course referring to the introduction of the
aforementioned legislations on contraception, abortion, and the like. As I have
mention in a previous post, democracies hinge on the idea that a nation that is
governed by the people requires virtue as a prerequisite to success. I can’t
exactly speak for previous generations, but I was never taught any form of
virtue or ethics in the public schools I have attended; on the contrary, my
parents gave me some very memorable ethics lessons with application of belt to
my buttocks. To be certain, the
transformation of our educational systems, have had noticeable results upon our
culture, manifesting in forms resembling Sodom and Gomorrah, e.g. faultless
divorce, gay marriage and other aforementioned “liberties.” Not to mention the
almost complete eradication of the Liberal Arts and their replacement with the Technological
Sciences.
It is
hard to pin point an exact date when our Judiciary System started drifting away
from its original legal philosophy of Natural law, but the change in direction
is indisputable. For an example of this, all one needs to do is look in the
current news updates on the eradication of traditional marriage. The battle for
contraception, abortion and divorce are in the hands of the enemy and soon
euthanasia and marriage will also be in their hands –at least legally. I do not
intend to be hopeless on these matters; I firmly trust prayer, fasting and hard
work can make a difference.
I know have I been verbose in
painting this American picture, but it is hard to not express these thoughts,
because it is a catharsis to me. As I said before, I wanted to give an example
of a country that has attempted service to our Lord –that country is Spain. I
have chosen Spain because I have recently listened to a lecture by Michael
Davies on a similar subject, whose link can be found here:
http://www.keepthefaith.org/detail.aspx?ID=933. In this lecture Mr. Davies expounds in detail on the
teaching of the Church prior to Vatican II regarding religious liberty and
gives examples (as I have done previously), of what happens to a state that adopts
a pluralistic mentality. It is plain to see in pre conciliar Spain, a fidelity
to the teaching of the Church by looking within their constitution. This is exemplified in Article 1 of their
concordat of 1953: “The Catholic Apostolic and Roman religion continues to be
the religion of the Spanish nation.” This was brought in line with the 1945
concordat called the Fuero de los Española’s and in Article 6 it states: “The
profession and practice of the Catholic Religion which is that of the Spanish
state will enjoy official protection. No one will be disturbed for his religious
beliefs nor the private exercise of his religion. There is no authorization for
external ceremonies or manifestations other than those of the Catholic
Religion.”
So
we see here a clear manifestation of a state submitting its rule with that of
the teaching of the Church. Practically speaking, the execution of this teaching
is a restriction on Protestants and others that prevented them the right to
publicly proselytize their faiths by signage and publication and sale of
literature. We see the same efforts inaugurated by Pope Paul IV with his
Index Librorum Prohibitorum –a list of
erroneous books, which protected the less educated faithful. This list has had
many revisions and additions heretofore 1948 and abolished in 1966 by Pope Paul
VI. With the innovations of cheaper and more efficient printing, the voluminous
increase of texts had become a formidable opponent to keep at bay. A
replacement to this daunting task of evaluating incoming texts was replaced by
the imprimatur (“let it be printed”) and nihil obstat (“nothing forbids”) the
receiving of which being given by the local ordinary. The purpose of this
restriction is the protection of the common good; the protection of souls from
falling into error. This is the teaching responsibility of Bishops to safeguard
the teaching of the Catholic faithful.
Father Wolfe gave a stunning homily (
http://files.audiosancto.org/20130328-Pray-for-Our-Priests-and-Bishops-Lest-They-Be-Damned.mp3) on the responsibility of priests and bishops that I
highly recommend you give a listen.
With
the advent of Dignitatis Humanae (D.H.),
Spain being a faithful Catholic State changed its constitutions to align itself
with the new Church teaching. D.H. sates in the
Declaration of Religious Liberty:
The right to religious
freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this
dignity is known to reveal the word of God by reason itself. The right of the
human person of religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law
whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right person of
religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society
is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.
The change in the constitution is
enumerated thus: “The profession and practice of the Catholic religion, which
is that of the Spanish state enjoys official protection. The state guarantees
the protection of religious liberty [Emphasis
added] to be guarded by an effective juridical provision which will safeguard
morals and public order.” The addition
to the juridical provision is the result of the additions in D.H. and in 1978 The Wanderer Stated: “The Spanish chamber of deputies has voted
approval of article 15 of the countries draft constitution which decrees there
will be no state religion and guarantees freedom of all religions.” It is
interesting to note the progression of Spain’s declaration of being a Catholic
State entitling official protection to it, to officially removing any public
affiliation with a particular religion. With that being established, let us see
the outcome. In 1978 the ban on contraception was lifted, in 1981 Spain
legalized divorce, and in 1985 abortion was legalized. As you can see, it took
less than 10 years for this “progress” to occur and consequently in 2005 gay
“marriage” had been legalized.
I
would like to go back a bit and touch on what were the influencing factors that
led to the change in Social Teaching in Vatican 2. Davies lays out pretty
thickly the influence of American Bishops and their instigation of American
political thought toward the council in the lecture I linked above. This quote
from John Courtney Murray a theologian and innovator at the Council, in favor
of Religious Liberty, indicates pretty clearly the effects of Americanism upon
the Schema of the Council:
During the council the
Schema on religious freedom was often called the American Schema, the adjective
would be quite inappropriate in regard with the final form of the schema, the
declaration of itself… It was therefore an act of the universal church like
that of the other conciliar documents. However during the long course of its
legislative history, the schema had the solid and consistent support of the
American bishops and their numerous interventions had considerable influence in
determining its substance and language…There was those who said that the
American bishops supported the schema simply for right reason, but this is an
inadequate view. Undoubtedly the support derived its basic inspiration from the
American experience, from which the Church has learned the practical value of
free exercise of the first amendment. The object or content to the right to
religious freedom as specified in the declaration and in the American
constitutional system is identical.
Again in the language of expressed
by Murray, connotes a certain pride in the erroneous American ideal and
politic.
Now
how do we go about reconciling the apparent contradictions between the teaching
of the Popes and the innovative ideal of American plurality in D.H.? Looking back at the quote from D.H. its
justification for change is based on three points: the dignity of the human
person, Reason, and Scripture. Does this infer that Pope Leo XIII was not
thinking logically and that he didn’t know his scripture? Davies gives an
amusing reminder of both the Amalekites and the prophets of Baal who were both
completely destroyed by Moses and the Israelites –as per the instruction of
God; this is a clear example that flies in the face of the concept of Religious
Liberty and pluralism. Nowhere in scripture is it said that one has the right
to propagate error. On the contrary, we see the Israelites suppressing the
error of the Amalekites by force, not tolerating their public expression of
faith. Now, I am not advocating any sort of cleansing of any erroneous religions
or peoples, I am simply stating we have clear example of the Israelites eradicating
those who are idolatrous; clearly squelching any idea that religious tolerance
was neither the norm nor God’s plan. As
far as the evidence from reason and human dignity, both D.H. and Davies give no
examples; therefore, have to be taken at face value and must be left to the
experts.
Two
of these experts are Bishop Dismet, a Belgium Relator for the Council who
interprets phrases and passages from previous church documents and Murray (himself
being the major inciter of the new teaching). Murray gives his thoughts on the relation of
the two teachings: “it is clear that the first and second views when dealing
with the question, make affirmations that are either contradictory or contrary.”
Dismet’s explanation is no better than Murray’s: “Some Fathers affirm that the
declaration do not sufficiently show how our doctrine is not opposed to
ecclesiastical documents up until the time of the supreme pontiff Leo XIII. As
we said in the last Relatio, this is a matter for future theological and
historical studies to bring to light more fully.” And I must quote Davies
logical conclusion: “If the Relator for the Secretary for Christian Unity,
cannot explain how these teaching can be reconciled, one wonders if anybody could.”
It is apparent here that at the time,
the two teaching were not reconciled and to my knowledge no such attempts have
been made to do so recently. What conclusions then are we to glean from this
information? Are we to have blind faith in the innovations and turn a blind eye
to history, or are we to respect the ancients and their wisdom? If you choose
based on the fruits they produce, then the choice is apparent. However, if we
choose the later, we must then determine that the previous teaching does not
relate to us in the 21st century and that the decline in morals and
virtue throughout the Christian world is due to some other impetus.
The
question that comes to mind is: Is the right of free expression of religion a
question of Eternal, Divine, Natural, or Human Law? This would require a deconstruction and using differing models
and scenarios. For example: Is or is not the country primarily Catholic, what
type of government are we dealing with?, etc. Based on the numerous variables
involved I am inclined to dub it a Human Law, which we would then conclude that
it is merely an application of the Natural Law. The basis then of our choosing
being determined by whether the common good is kept. We are then left with the
question: Would the permission of public practice of all religions help or
retard the common good? I will let you answer that for yourselves.
Before
I end, I want to recap some important points and questions for you to chew on:
1. Should there be a
definite separation of Church and State? Only if you are not Christian and or have some sin or lifestyle
you are attempting to rationalize or cling too.
2. Authority comes from God
alone, his rule being manifest in his Law, enumerated in the Commandments and
the teachings of Jesus, promulgated by those who have been given authority in
his Church, whose interest is the people and which is humbly and obediently
deferred to by states and individuals
3. The Teaching of the
Church up to Leo XIII has been to suppress error by restricting public exercise
of religion and publication of literature, which is not Catholic.
4. Americanism, which is a
self-centered ideal focusing on the supremacy of the American political ideal
of plurality and tolerance of all beliefs, is the model for all other nations
and the Church, which should be conformed to.
5. With the change in the
Churches Social Teaching, presented in Dignitatis Humanae, the Church conformed
to the ideals of Religious Liberty, which was an un-reconcilably deviation from
the teaching of previous Popes.
6. With this apparent
contradiction, to which teaching are faithful Catholics to heed? We are to accept to those teaching witch best conform to
Scripture, Tradition, and reason.
What does this mean for us exactly? I would say that it is
simply a new topic of prayer for us. The focus of our prayer should also
include those with positions of authority within our government. The purpose of
the prayer should be that all sovereignty should be assigned to God, whom is
the authority of all men and states, who’s Law should always be referenced and
consulted in any executive or legislative action. This is the only method by
which states can properly give service to Christ the King, who is the King of
our lives, nature, and the societies that govern.
